Is Every Prime Factor of a Composite Number Less Than or Equal to sqrt(n)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter annoymage
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of prime factors of composite numbers, specifically whether every prime factor of a composite number is less than or equal to the square root of that number.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of the statement regarding prime factors and their relationship to the square root of composite numbers. There are attempts to clarify the implications of the statement and to construct proofs based on the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

Discussion Status

Several participants are actively engaging in proof attempts and providing hints to each other. Some have suggested splitting cases to analyze the relationship between prime factors and the square root of composite numbers, while others are questioning the assumptions made in their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of constraints such as the assumption that composite numbers are greater than 3, and the need to clarify the conditions under which certain inequalities hold. Participants are also navigating the implications of their assumptions in the context of their proofs.

annoymage
Messages
360
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If n is a composite number, the n has prime factor nor exceeding sqrt(n)

Homework Equations



n/a

The Attempt at a Solution



what did it mean by "nor exceeding sqrt(n)", is it, it must be less than sqrt(n)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i'd gues it meant "not"
 
is it suppose to mean

If n is a composite number, then n has prime factor not exceeding sqrt(n) ??
 
annoymage said:
is it suppose to mean

If n is a composite number, then n has prime factor not exceeding sqrt(n) ??

Yes. If p is the prime factor show p<=sqrt(n).
 
can you check my proof please,

since n is composite number, so n>3, so by fundamental theorem of arithmetic n can be written by product of primes, say [tex]pp_1p_2...p_k=n[/tex], so let [tex]p_1p_2...p_k=a\ ,\ where\ a<n[/tex] and assume [tex]p \leq a[/tex] without loss generality, so we get [tex]pa=n\ ,\ 3<p \leq a<n[/tex], so suppose [tex]p>\sqrt{n}[/tex], then [tex]a>\sqrt{n}[/tex] then [tex]ap>\sqrt{n}\sqrt{n}=n[/tex] contradiction. is it okay?

but it seems something wrong when i assume [tex]p \leq a[/tex], because if [tex]a \leq p[/tex] we get [tex]3<a \leq p<n[/tex] and i can't conclude [tex]a>\sqrt{n}[/tex] right? help T_T
 
annoymage said:
can you check my proof please,

since n is composite number, so n>3, so by fundamental theorem of arithmetic n can be written by product of primes, say [tex]pp_1p_2...p_k=n[/tex], so let [tex]p_1p_2...p_k=a\ ,\ where\ a<n[/tex] and assume [tex]p \leq a[/tex] without loss generality, so we get [tex]pa=n\ ,\ 3<p \leq a<n[/tex], so suppose [tex]p>\sqrt{n}[/tex], then [tex]a>\sqrt{n}[/tex] then [tex]ap>\sqrt{n}\sqrt{n}=n[/tex] contradiction. is it okay?

but it seems something wrong when i assume [tex]p \leq a[/tex], because if [tex]a \leq p[/tex] we get [tex]3<a \leq p<n[/tex] and i can't conclude [tex]a>\sqrt{n}[/tex] right? help T_T

I don't why or how you want to assume p<=a. Or why the condition 3<p. Look, you got that if pa=n the either p<=sqrt(n) or a<=sqrt(n). Split into cases.
 
Dick said:
if pa=n the either p<=sqrt(n) or a<=sqrt(n). Split into cases.
i don't even tried/think to prove that, but thanks, that's a hint for me ;P, so I start to prove that first

if [tex]p \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex] then it is proven, if not, suppose [tex]a>\sqrt{n}[/tex] then we have [tex]ap>\sqrt{n}\sqrt{n}=n[/tex], contradiction. then
Dick said:
if pa=n the either p<=sqrt(n) or a<=sqrt(n)
.

so If [tex]p \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex] then the question is proven,

and If [tex]a \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex], so [tex]p_1p_2...p_k \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex] then
[tex]p_1 \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex], then finished, is it ok now?
 
annoymage said:
i don't even tried/think to prove that, but thanks, that's a hint for me ;P, so I start to prove that first

if [tex]p \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex] then it is proven, if not, suppose [tex]a>\sqrt{n}[/tex] then we have [tex]ap>\sqrt{n}\sqrt{n}=n[/tex], contradiction. then .

so If [tex]p \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex] then the question is proven,

and If [tex]a \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex], so [tex]p_1p_2...p_k \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex] then
[tex]p_1 \leq \sqrt{n}[/tex], then finished, is it ok now?

Yes, now it looks ok.
 
k thank you very much ^^
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K